X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from web46409.mail.sp1.yahoo.com ([68.180.199.198] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.8) with SMTP id 4416195 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 02 Aug 2010 18:44:57 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.180.199.198; envelope-from=dwayneparkinson@yahoo.com Received: (qmail 48767 invoked by uid 60001); 2 Aug 2010 22:44:21 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1280789061; bh=nOuw4l8emcL51I2WHbQig5x6UvM5ElNK34LWYgVpMRg=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=jsDg12QgszBifhqbVJjc0w99nccd2aMVcvN0YKLinpeBayBBjMSDpNPKhWRkG4PXDczBMOVKBvd35+PcJctC7Q6izgn0jJJLM2MhUR0NC+82OqAOQTqNPN1UD1mpIoxj7qcGNbNSyFIuOawt2HYsLIQAeQkPjsny22tad9RRR/A= DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=3fYFOtnIklOXu3KKqDjgO7et4/qFLmjRfn6NGXS9fngxEdoQr0GcaDyvZ7Gc9ZdX1etQ6qDAc9t55sG8NoKgnwcEOjNfKoSR6FJ+KeX6Vkjjd/Rz3C/CPmtCd4zstbr6ErRyHSqMHDoccFo2TT1HRxd1N9OrhncDpN20T5hvGGs=; Message-ID: <137198.48257.qm@web46409.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: CvnkNYQVM1lUKl6fi09Ua2R6nBRodniFp7EwWS7VCFmlkow CCCkS_sM4BUrniTy.WpfCGr2KxeZiCpquh7LniOuCJkCFmSb0P7My2KLrcgj ZRaXx8JV2P6uI_sL5BJdnjUPbDBFCtBFnD8CqvtS.xmvwYlYyctg_7mxq3o9 PmWaBFa.CUkUdcnbzDctwBzwXo2SwcaTsb0W.Yb...U0YOrkqAvjLcJW81Ni KWJx8VH_88TcYCfK_jvFTHtsPsnD9BdoKBlFJh8_kxjrX7Q05AQrPtHgTgEd wpek5os3j4.nkeOMLVNSwqsAl6WxNGcDHfVu1jYSlb1sMpgMV Received: from [24.177.130.10] by web46409.mail.sp1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 02 Aug 2010 15:44:20 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/420.4 YahooMailWebService/0.8.105.279950 References: Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 15:44:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Dwayne Parkinson Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Bad rotary week To: Rotary motors in aircraft In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1632345063-1280789060=:48257" --0-1632345063-1280789060=:48257 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Thanks for the quick reply. I'm building a Bearhawk (4 seat, high wing) on floats so the extra HP is needed especially for take off. I've looked extensively at using a 13B-REW to try to get the HP I need without adding the weight and unique parts of a 20B, but turbo installations seem to get eaten by exhaust heat. I'm unaware of anyone getting 100 hours out of a turbo. Is there anyone on the list who has more than 100 hours on their turbo? Thanks for the feedback!!! Dwayne ________________________________ From: George Lendich To: Rotary motors in aircraft Sent: Mon, August 2, 2010 5:08:41 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Bad rotary week Dwayne, I had a feeling things weren't going to plan, however unless you need the extra power a 16X would deliver because of the larger eccentric and volume, the 13B is still a good choice IMHO. Give the volume is the same with the RX7 and RX8 the power is the same. If more power is needed then PP or Turbo is the answer. Personally I believe the best answers are in those driving enhancements in the 13B development for Aviation. I'm hoping Bill Jepson will be up and running with his lighter housings and PP design sooner rather than later. He's not saying much as I believe he wants to leave the talking to the testing results . George ( down under) > >For anyone hoping that a 16X would show up any time soon: not ... gonna ... >happen. No RX7 and the RX8 is still powered by the Renesis for 2011. > > >http://www.mazdausamedia.com/content/2011-mazda-vehicles-glance > > >As if that's not bad enough, when I was at Oshkosh I took in David Atkins >rotary seminar. I came away pretty depressed thinking that I probably won't >put a rotary engine in my airplane. Is everyone else really using 1 quart of >oil every 5 hours? He also didn't have much good to say about the Renesis >in an aviation application which leads me to conclude that the 16X will fare >even worse in aviation applications as it is tweaked to meet higher EPA >requirements and produce more low end torque. > > >Is anyone but Tracy using a Renesis? I'd really like to know what HP you're >getting, what the fuel burn is and how it's holding up. > > >Thanks, > > >Dwayne > > >P.S. I couldn't find any rotary planes on the field at Oshkosh. Perhaps >they sank into the mud. > > > > > > > > > --0-1632345063-1280789060=:48257 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Thanks for the quick reply.  I'm building a Bearhawk (4 seat, high wing) on floats so the extra HP is needed especially for take off.  I've looked extensively at using a 13B-REW to try to get the HP I need without adding the weight and unique parts of a 20B, but turbo installations seem to get eaten by exhaust heat.  I'm unaware of anyone getting 100 hours out of a turbo.  Is there anyone on the list who has more than 100 hours on their turbo?

Thanks for the feedback!!!

Dwayne

From: George Lendich <lendich@aanet.com.au>
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Mon, August 2, 2010 5:08:41 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Bad rotary week

Dwayne,
I had a feeling things weren't going to plan, however unless you need the extra power a 16X would deliver because of the  larger eccentric and volume, the 13B is still a good choice IMHO.
Give the volume is the same with the RX7 and RX8 the power is the same. If more power is needed then PP or Turbo is the answer.
Personally I believe the best answers are in those driving enhancements in the 13B development for Aviation. I'm hoping Bill Jepson will be up and running with his lighter housings and PP design sooner rather than later. He's not saying much as I believe he wants to leave the talking to the testing results .
George ( down under)

For anyone hoping that a 16X would show up any time soon:  not ... gonna ... happen.  No RX7 and the RX8 is still powered by the Renesis for 2011.


As if that's not bad enough, when I was at Oshkosh I took in David Atkins rotary seminar.  I came away pretty depressed thinking that I probably won't put a rotary engine in my airplane.  Is everyone else really using 1 quart of oil every 5 hours?  He also didn't have much good to say about the Renesis in an aviation application which leads me to conclude that the 16X will fare even worse in aviation applications as it is tweaked to meet higher EPA requirements and produce more low end torque.

Is anyone but Tracy using a Renesis?  I'd really like to know what HP you're getting, what the fuel burn is and how it's holding up.

Thanks,

Dwayne

P.S.  I couldn't find any rotary planes on the field at Oshkosh.  Perhaps they sank into the mud.






--0-1632345063-1280789060=:48257--